In the epidemiological imagination, the Framingham Heart Study has attained iconic status, both as the prototype of the cohort study and as a result of its scientific success. When the Public Health Service launched the study in 1947, epidemiological knowledge of coronary heart disease was poor, and epidemiology primarily involved the study of infectious disease. In constructing their investigation, Framingham's initiators had to invent new approaches to epidemiological research. These scientific goals were heavily influenced by the contending institutional and personal interests buffeting the study. The study passed through vicissitudes and stages during its earliest years as its organizers grappled to define its relationship to medicine, epidemiology, and the local community.

Tuberculosis (TB) began to decline in the Western world in the mid- to late 1800s. In the United States, the disease receded until the mid-1980s, when that trend was reversed. Although the TB epidemic in the United States subsided in response to public health interventions, it sparked a controversy regarding the relative value of targeted public health measures vs broad social reform. That controversy, which echoed earlier debates calling for structural reform over public health programs, was further strengthened by the historical and demographic studies of Thomas McKeown. His influential thesis maintains that clinical and primary prevention efforts had little effect on TB mortality. In this paper, the historical literature is used to examine whether public health had a significant impact on the decline of TB mortality rates in several countries. Specifically, the paper describes the arguments for and data affirming the efficacy of 2 major public health interventions over time: segregation of those infected with pulmonary TB and eradication of bovine TB. This review finds support for the hypothesis that public health measures, along with other factors, led to falling rates of TB mortality beginning in the late 19th century.

This historical study examines the development of coronary heart disease (CHD) research and its role in the evolution of post-1945 chronic disease epidemiology in the United States. To give the examination greater salience, it compares the pathway represented by CHD epidemiology with that of lung cancer. Historians have paid less attention to the differences between the two, which later merged into what we now call 'risk factor epidemiology'. This study assesses why CHD epidemiology in the post-war period almost uniformly began with cohort studies and primarily stressed clinical variables as putative aetiological factors. It describes how CHD epidemiologists sought to justify the creation of a non-infectious chronic disease epidemiology, a position reinforced by the relative swiftness with which they obtained important results. It also follows the emergence of 'risk factor thinking' within CHD epidemiology. CHD epidemiology critically differed from its lung cancer counterpart in that it identified multiple factors of risk, each producing relatively small effects, rather than a single factor producing a strong and evident outcome. Consequently, it was difficult for CHD epidemiologists to demonstrate causality and to confirm scientifically that reducing risk factors would lower CHD rates. This had significant consequences for primary prevention and public health policy.